Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It should be a lesson to learn on how simple, logical and reliable tools can last decades.


… Or how hard it is to replace archaic software that’s extremely prevalent.


Bash syntax is anything but simple or logical. Just look at the insane if-statement syntax. Or how the choice of quotes fundamentally changes behavior. Argument parsing, looping, the list goes on.


if statements are pretty simple

if $command; then <thing> else <thing> fi

You may be complaining about the syntax for the test command specifically or bash’s [[ builtin

Also the choice of quotes changing behavior is a thing in:

1. JavaScript/typescript 2. Python 3. C/C++ 4. Rust

In some cases it’s the same difference, eg: string interpolation in JavaScript with backticks


> Also the choice of quotes changing behavior is a thing in:

In those languages they change what's contained in the string. Not how many strings you get. Or what the strings from that string look like. ($@ being an extreme example)


> $@ being an extreme example

From the bash man page via StackOverflow:

> @ Expands to the positional parameters, starting from one. When the expansion occurs within double quotes, each parameter expands to a separate word. That is, "$@" is equivalent to "$1" "$2" ... If the double-quoted expansion occurs within a word, the expansion of the first parameter is joined with the beginning part of the original word, and the expansion of the last parameter is joined with the last part of the original word. When there are no positional parameters, "$@" and $@ expand to nothing (i.e., they are removed).

That’s…a lot. I think Bash is interesting in the “I’m glad it works but I detest having to work with it” kind of way. Like, fine if I’m just launching some processes or tail’ing some logs, but I’ve rarely had a time when I had to write an even vaguely complex bash script where I didn’t end up spending most of my time relearning how to do things that should be basic.

Shellcheck was a big game changer at least in terms of learning some of the nuance from a “best practice” standpoint. I also think that the way bash does things is just a little too foreign from the rest of my computing life to be retained.


Complex and bash script should not be in the same sentence. If a script you have is becoming complex, that’s an hint to use an anemable programming language with proper data types and structures.

Shell scripts is for automating shell sessions.


Are taxes simple?

Why does Bash syntax have to be "simple"? For me, Bash syntax is simple.


Uh, reading a bash script shouldn't be as hard as doing your taxes. Bash syntax has to be simple because bash code is going to be read and reasoned by humans. Reading just a simple if statement in bash syntax requires a TON of knowledge to avoid shooting yourself in the foot. That's a massive failure of usability just to save a couple of keystrokes.

This is like saying "what's wrong with brainfuck??? makes sense to me!" Every syntax can be understood, that does not automatically make them all good ideas.


You could make a list of WTFs about any language.

Bash syntax is the pinnacle of Chesterton's Fence. If you can't articulate why it was done that way, you have no right to remove it. Python would be an absolutely unusable shell language.


I didn't say that there wasn't a reason. I said it was absolute trash to use. It's so bad that the moment I need even the slightest bit of complexity, I will switch away from bash. Can't really say that for any other language.


It's more like how the need for backwards compatibility prevents bad interfaces from ever getting improved.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: